Sexism and the City

This broad brush is worse than foolish. The idea that there is a representative attitude among men is the same as the idea that there is a representative attitutude among blacks, gays or - golly - women. These superficial pronouncements go even a step further and suggest to the representative group that this is how they're supposed to feel and if they don't, they're somehow out of step. It fills up space in a magazine is about the best that can be said for it,

Seriously are we little children or adults here? Yes it was a very popular series on HBO and the movie, i think, was simply amazing, but aren't we reading a bit too much from it? It's a show surrounding the lives of four very different women who love each other. It's a chick flick, yes, so most men won't find it interesting, and some women too but so what, do you just have to list out all the ways in which the show, in your estimation, is ridiculous?! Of course you wouldn't let anyone below the age of 21 watch it. Of course the director/writer could not develop the story line too much because there is a time factor. I mean it's SATC not Lord of the Rings! But for those of us who like to be entertained, who don't neccessarily want to be scared witless or have their heart rate tripled, who like chick flicks and fashion it was a great movie!

Excuse me, but isn't the whole reason the film exists itself a form of sexism? And fomenting an argument between on group of privileged yuppies and another group of privileged yuppies is or should be just a cause for yawning.

It bothers me that a lot of articles asked about this movie: Will men go see it? Who cares? Did anyone ask if women would go see the last "Rambo"? Yes. the "SATC" movie was sometimes silly, but it was entertaining and it was four great female characters taking center stage. Maybe if Hollywood made more movies with interesting women, and not the usual sappy rom-coms, more women would go see the movies.

We are not looking for characters of substance here. But, if we dig a little deeper, we can recognize aspects of their personalities in all of us. Miranda repersented the cold, logical businesswoman, Charlotte was the optimist, Samantha had the enormous sex drive, and Carrie was the insecure friend. Yet they all clung to their friendships as true sisters. The series was entertaining in a modern Cinderella type of way, we got to enjoy

I loved the series on HBO. I have not yet seen the movie. These four women represented four different personality aspects that may be common to most women to some degree. Charlotte was prim and proper on the surface, Miranda was the cold, calculating and logical businesswoman, Samantha had a huge sex drive, and Carrie portrayed the vulnerability and insecurity that plague so many of us. The series portrayed four close friends who were financially comfortable, almost a CCinderella type fantasy, but also maintained enough fashion and beauty four close

As a man, the movie, and series, strikes me as conspicuously ironic. The premise for the franchise (which is what it has become), is how through female bonding, women are able to build up one another, and strengthen one another when men, jobs, life, etc. lets them down. Yet the plot of nearly every show I have seen, and the plot of the movie, revolves around these four women chasing either men, or some paradigm of white, WASP-ish femininity which can only be attained through fashion, high society, and (shockingly), men.

The show does not teach women to be strong, to be independent or high-minded. These women contribute absolutely nothing of value to society at large. Their concerns revolve primarily around fetishistic consumer culture. I know far more women who live lives that are completely outside the sphere that these four women run inside of, women who want to be single because they feel it affords them greater social and civil efficacy than it would to chase men and attend fashionable parties.

As a man, I see the need for strong, independent women in our society. I am not threatened by this prospect, as they bring balance to a world that is still ruled by male hegemony. For the four heroines of this franchise, however, that pair of pumps unfortunately does not fit. And to compare them to one of the most significant advocates of universal health care and combatants of poverty and injustice in the world does a tremendously grave disservice to Ms. Clinton.

I am a woman. I loved the series. I think your points absolutely hold about the SERIES. The film on the other hand, I feel that women were in fact the blind ones here. They were blinded by how amazing the series was and projected their love of that onto what was an otherwise awful film. These once amazing characters were reduced to becoming extremely one dimensional silly versions of their once glorious, strong, independent selves. Carrie and Miranda basically brought their own misery on themselves by being selfish and not even considering the needs of their significant others. Miranda basically emotionally and physically abandoned her husband and I am expected to feel for HER? The same for Carrie. She paid no attention to how uncomfortable her fiancé was with the state of the huge wedding. She made it all about her. For once, I am squarely with the boys. This was a horrible film that did not make women look good, strong or able to get along without the men. There was nothing to threaten them here, but plenty to annoy anyone who is really paying attention. I can see why it got such low ratings from men and am shocked that women were so utterly blinded at it's inherent crappiness and that it was an obvious ploy to make money off something that had run its natural course. It is a great pity that the amazing legacy of strong, independent girl friends who deeply care for one another that was that show had to be damaged by the film.

I agree that there are many sexist comments from guys about "Sex and the City" and other so-called "chick flicks." There is a long tradition of women finding empowerment in romantic and consumerist fantasies. It reaches all the way back to factory girls reading dime novels at the turn of the century. Serious critics often short change the power of trivial fantasy to lift people up.
On the other hand, I do not think we should applaud the bravery of filmmakers who played on the success of a popular series to assure a film with a big opening weekend. Making endless sequels is the essence of Hollywood's greedy timidity. Nor should we pretend that this movie realistically portrays the lives of real women in America with realistic incomes. Nor is it great art. If you want a fully realized portrait of a three dimensional female character read "Anna Karenina" or "To Kill a Mockingbird." I want to watch movies that give me an insight into the female psyche, but "Sex and the City" is not one of them.
David Golann
Auburndale, MA

here's the link - http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e6054da8d2

Interesting parallel between Carrie and Hillary. And what do these two have in common? They are both involved in storylines where they are the star and not the men in their lives. And men would be all over the SATC ladies if they'd been confined to the usual 'movie girl' role role of Fawning, Idealized Cypher (or in Samantha's case, as a woman over 50, NonExistent). Sorry if you think this is bashing but...shoot, you're just so dang BASHABLE!

Attention "Sex and the City" fans! Here is the long awaited spin-off series, "Sex and Los Angeles." See what lengths Carrie's cousin Callie will go to to get a decent date... <object width="464" height="388" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"><param name="movie" value="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="key=e6054da8d2" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed width="464" height="388" flashvars="key=e6054da8d2" allowfullscreen="true" quality="high" src="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object><noscript><a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e6054da8d2">Sex & Los Angeles</a> on <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com">FunnyOrDie.com</a></noscript>

Seriously, now I have to feel bad about hating this crappy TV show and crappy movie? Is my distaste for the story of four selfish, label obsessed women any different from my wife's, simply because I am a man? Does every preference have to be sexism? Can't I just admire Barak Obama without being a misogynist?

It scares the bejesus out of me when we get to this level. I have never- not once- bemoaned the fact that most women I know don't understand the appeal of the Three Stooges, cigars and fishing. It has never occured to me for one minute that it was anything more than a preference. This movie is not a cultural milestone- it is a movie that a lot of woman seem to like more than men. Have a good time, but let us see "Ironman" and we will meet you in the lobby.

GOSH! I won't accord so much importance to this flick!! The whole sexist angle being talked about here is almost hilarious!

GOSH! I won't accord so much importance to this flick!! The whole sexist angle being talked about here is almost hilarious!

OK, I'm a man. I'm a flaming hetero-sexual. I enjoy the series. I even enjoyed the movie to some degree, but at the same time, it made me genuinely angry. (Spoiler alert!) It seems to me that if a female character in the movies got cold feet and left the scene of the wedding, only to turn around and return mere minutes later, she would not be so castigated as Mr. Big was. It is, after all, a woman's perogative to change her mind. I suppose it is romantic to have your secretary copy historical love stories on your behalf and send them off into the ether of cyberspace fully expecting them to never be read. It doesn't seem to fit in with the character of Big from the series however. Now that he's finally found Love, he can't live without Carrie? It seems to me that sometime before the 5 months had passed, he probably would have given up on the project (though he really didn't need to devote much energy to it). I get it that he loves her. I get it that he knows he made her justifiably angry. At some point though, wouldn't he shake his head of his besotted haze and see that she might have been over-reacting to cut him out of her life completely? Wouldn't this make him angry in return? He would be expected to be understanding if she needed a few minutes to catch her breath before entering the Public Library for such a life changing event. Is it wrong of me to be angry at Carrie for not being more tolerant of his trepidation? Clearly a wedding is always seen as the bride's day, but let's not accept that notion to the exclusion to the feelings of the groom.

Oh, well. I guess the women deserve to have a movie that skews things into their perspective. Maybe that's how they feel about one of my fantasy genres... porn.